What are the top 3 things you want to see in the next CBA?

[Guest]

We'll have to agree to disagree that the NFL - where teams in Green Bay and Pittsburgh can be among the perenial league leaders - is akin to a coin flipping game.

My main point outside of the slippery slope is that "fairness" drives each game to becoming a coin flip. I am not a proponent of driving each game to being a coin-flip or even driving games away from being 60-40. I think the a priori impression of the game is irrelevant and the reason why people watch games isn't because there is a fair shot for a team to win but the compelling story behind it.

Most of my issues we have discussed before and there isn't much else to say in the arguments. At this point one of us would have to come up with some unheard of argument to get either to change their mind, and its unlikely to see that in this stage. At this point of the thread I am just tired of hearing ad hoc solutions, I don't find those to be helpful. Its easy to say "oh if I add on this aspect, it solves this particular problem!" while what one should really do in attacking the issues that the CBA has created is examine what wording in the CBA caused the problem and address that. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

[AHF]

My main point outside of the slippery slope is that "fairness" drives each game to becoming a coin flip. I am not a proponent of driving each game to being a coin-flip or even driving games away from being 60-40. I think the a priori impression of the game is irrelevant and the reason why people watch games isn't because there is a fair shot for a team to win but the compelling story behind it.

Most of my issues we have discussed before and there isn't much else to say in the arguments. At this point one of us would have to come up with some unheard of argument to get either to change their mind, and its unlikely to see that in this stage. At this point of the thread I am just tired of hearing ad hoc solutions, I don't find those to be helpful. Its easy to say "oh if I add on this aspect, it solves this particular problem!" while what one should really do in attacking the issues that the CBA has created is examine what wording in the CBA caused the problem and address that. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

We disagree on the fundamental approach of cap versus no cap, but I think that in a world with a cap structure one like I was proposing would be much simpler and less ad hoc than the current rules.

[dlpin]

I don't think it is there because I am talking about post-waivers. Bibby gets waived but no one wants to pick up his contract. When he signs a new minimum contract deal, the Hawks should be prohibited from signing him unless the other teams in the league all pass on him at that price, IMO.

I'd like to see less movement of the top players than we are seeing today and I don't think Utah trades Deron if they can franchise him. Likewise, you wouldn't see a situation where a team is led on and then utterly destroyed ala Cleveland. As a fan, I prefer some type of franchise tag to the existing structure.

One I forgot to mention:

(8) PLAYER COLLUSION - In addition to teams being barred from soliciting players under contract with another team, players under contract with one team are prohibited from going after players under contract with another team. If you want to plan out future free agency, do it with your agent and not with players who are under contract with another team. There are lots of practical problems with enforcing this but I would want it on the books in case of egregious examples ala the T-Wolves Joe Smith type of scenario (i.e., a scenario where people are so blatant and stupid about it that they get caught anyway).

I am pretty sure that any provision that would prevent an out of contract player from signing with a team would be struck down by the courts very quickly. There is a reason why even with restricted free agency teams must still offer a deal to keep the player's rights.

As for the "less movement of the top players" bit, a franchise tag does nothing because in the end it is still clear the player will be leaving. So unless you do away with free agency, top players will still leave. What they have in the NBA is even better than a franchise tag. Right now there is no doubt in my mind that Lebron wanted to leave cleveland from the start. But under the current system, he still had to sign a 3 year extension to even become a free agent, so there was no chance for him to leave on his own for 7 years. Not even the NFL does that. Do you think that a team is going to be able to keep a superstar that wants to move because of a 1 year franchise tag?

It is just the nature of the sport that superstars will have a lot of power. One superstar can turn any team around. In football, if players throw a tantrum and demand to be moved, they are more easily replaced. TO demands out of philly and philly can just bench him, even as other teams sour on him because of his attitude. Same thing for Haynesworth. In basketball, if a player sulks, plays poorly and forces the team's hand to be dealt, other teams will still chase the player. See Vince Carter. See Deron Williams. Deron Williams was able to force a trade a year and a half before his free agency.

[sturt]

I am pretty sure that any provision that would prevent an out of contract player from signing with a team would be struck down by the courts very quickly. There is a reason why even with restricted free agency teams must still offer a deal to keep the player's rights....

Two things argue to the contrary. First, that there is such a thing as a non-compete clause that constrains a person's ability to be hired by certain employers based on competition with a previous employer; second, and this is just a more general point that I've picked up in the midst of all the discussion about what's going on in WI, when you're talking about a management/union agreement, the parameters of what the two sides can do is broader than what can be done when there is no union involved.

[AHF]

I am pretty sure that any provision that would prevent an out of contract player from signing with a team would be struck down by the courts very quickly. There is a reason why even with restricted free agency teams must still offer a deal to keep the player's rights.

A provision that said a player could sign with any team except a team that traded or cut him and then can even sign with those teams as long as other teams have passed on the same deal that was negotiated between the Union and the Owners would absolutely be lawful.

What you would end up with is players no longer returning to the same teams that traded/cut them but still ending up with jobs if they are desirable. They would also still get to return to those same teams that cut them or traded them if those teams were willing to pay more than other teams.

This would not be a legal problem for the league anymore than the current 30 day ban on resigning with the team that traded you is a problem. Sturt's comment about the range of options in a collectively bargained contract being broader than in a non-unionized environment is also correct - particularly since collectively bargained provisions don't have to conform to anti-trust law (which is how you can get things like age limits as part of the lawful CBA).

[Buzzard]

If I were going to make changes I would do the following which would all be focused around what I think would make the product more attractive for fans:

(1) HARD CAP - Eliminate the luxury tax and go with a hard cap and minimum spending floor. Eliminate the exceptions. The appeal of sports to me as a fan is seeing which team can win from the same starting point. In fantasy leagues, everyone starts with the same auction budget and as a fan I want to see that in my pro league. Tie the cap number to a % of the finances to be determined in collective bargaining between the owners and players.

(2) DRAFT ELIGIBLE AGE - Raise the minimum age to 2 years removed from high school. Better scouting and higher impact players makes the draft more meaningful and reduces the "training on the job" concerns.

(3) CLOSE BUYOUT LOOPHOLE - If a player agrees to a buyout, he cannot sign with the team that bought him out or any team that traded him that season unless other teams are offered the chance to match the contract offered by one of the prohibited teams and pass. That protects a marginal player like Mario West who might only have value to the Hawks from losing a job that he would otherwise have in the league while preventing the trade and resign scenarios for desirable players.

(4) FRANCHISE TAG - Institute a franchise tag. As a fan, I detest seeing my team held ransom by the star player who earns the most money on the roster. Make teams pay a premium for using the tag but no more "Decisions" or "Melodrama." The franchise tag is a salary 5% above the maximum (or some other premium).

(5) LIMITED GUARANTEED CONTRACTS/RESTRUCTURING - Give players and teams the right to restructure contracts any way they want and teams the right to cut a player while being on the hook for them for two years. For example, if Orlando wanted to cut Gilbert Arenas they would pay him for the next two years (roughly $39 million) but would be relieved of the rest of his contract. This gives both players and teams leverage if they want to restructure a deal.

(6) OPEN SALARIES UP TO MAXIMUM. I would allow teams to resign players at any price up to a league maximum figure so there would be no more situations where Golden State can't resign their own player for as much as another team can (unless it was based on room under the cap). There would also be no limits on contract length as long as no one was trying an Ilya Kovalchuck sort of contract as a way to lower the annual salary for a player beyond their playing years.

(7) TRADE ANY PLAYERS. As long as you remain above the salary floor and at or below the cap, I would allow any players to be traded for any others without needing to match salaries.

I agree man. The NBA needs to get more in line with the NFL and NHL. Franchise tags, hard cap, unrestricted free agency is the way to go if the league truly wants parity. I know a lot argue that parity kills tv ratings, but both the NFL and NHL (recently) are enjoying a lot of success. This past Super Bowl and Pro Bowl had record book type ratings; and you would be hard pressed to find two smaller markets with tighter budgets than Green Bay and Pittsburgh.

I am pretty damn bored with the NBA to be honest and I am sure I am not alone in that. Look at the NFL and the way wild card teams get to and win the Super Bowl, now look at the NBA where the 8th seed has only beaten a #1 seed once in its history. If it were not for our Hawks making the playoffs, it would be a no brainer for me to go ho hum until at least the conference finals.

[Buzzard]

My main point outside of the slippery slope is that "fairness" drives each game to becoming a coin flip. I am not a proponent of driving each game to being a coin-flip or even driving games away from being 60-40. I think the a priori impression of the game is irrelevant and the reason why people watch games isn't because there is a fair shot for a team to win but the compelling story behind it.

Most of my issues we have discussed before and there isn't much else to say in the arguments. At this point one of us would have to come up with some unheard of argument to get either to change their mind, and its unlikely to see that in this stage. At this point of the thread I am just tired of hearing ad hoc solutions, I don't find those to be helpful. Its easy to say "oh if I add on this aspect, it solves this particular problem!" while what one should really do in attacking the issues that the CBA has created is examine what wording in the CBA caused the problem and address that. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

So wrong and so right. The compelling story is the little guy makes good, in this years case, Green Bay and Pittsburgh. And the reality is, no way that could have happened without a hard cap. First off, two small market teams in a highly viewed championship and secondly, you do realize that Green Bay was the 6th seed. When if ever has a 6th seed won a NBA championship? You argue facts but can only support your argument with conjecture.

The facts: There is no parity in the NBA and there is no hard cap. There is a great deal of parity in the NFL and there is a hard cap. Find a way to dispute those facts and you have a valid argument.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Buzzard

[Guest]

So wrong and so right. The compelling story is the little guy makes good, in this years case, Green Bay and Pittsburgh. And the reality is, no way that could have happened without a hard cap. You do realize that Green Bay was the 6th seed. When if ever has a 6th seed won a NBA championship? You argue facts but can only support your argument with conjecture.

Oh I don't know, off the top of my head the 1995 Houston Rockets. Or we could also talk about the oh-so-close 1999 Knicks who were an 8 seed and went to the Finals. FACT: you do not need a hard cap to have parity. Another FACT: parity does not lead to an entertaining event.

The facts: There is no parity in the NBA and there is no hard cap. There is a great deal of parity in the NFL and there is a hard cap. Find a way to dispute those facts and you have a valid argument.

NFL and NBA are fundamentally two different elements. On the one hand, you have a game that cannot be dominated by any single individual. Where at least 22 players are involved throughout the entire game and a roster of 53. A game that has a single elimination tournament. On the other hand you have a game that we have seen can be dominated by a single player (Jordan) and can have 7 people pull you through an entire season.

How much of the "parity" in the NFL is explained by single-elimination in the playoffs? You have clearly never thought of that. You want to casually look that the NFL has a hard cap and then jump to the conclusion that "oh well gee wizz it must be the case that a hard cap gives you a great product, just look at them there NFL!!!" Wrong, you simply haven't thought through this long enough to comprehend for one the fundamental differences in the NFL and NBA and two what the consequences of the NBA going to a hard cap would do.

The NBA should definitely be wary of anything that takes away from their player's especially considering the rise of popularity and revenue for European Leagues. One big reason why the NFL has a deal that favors the owners so much (thats what a hard cap does, and it especially favors the big market owners) is that there simply are not any viable alternatives for an NFL player. The only other comparable league is the CFL but the revenue there is dwarfed by the NFL. The NFL is a monopsony, the NBA is losing its monoposony power every year and they would be wise to not take away too much from the players. You put in a hard cap and the earning potential of each NBA player (superstar to 15th man) drops considerably, there are only a few potential scenarios that would have players benefit (players as a whole would never benefit, just a select group in the few scenarios).

[Buzzard]

Oh I don't know, off the top of my head the 1995 Houston Rockets. Or we could also talk about the oh-so-close 1999 Knicks who were an 8 seed and went to the Finals. FACT: you do not need a hard cap to have parity. Another FACT: parity does not lead to an entertaining event.

NFL and NBA are fundamentally two different elements. On the one hand, you have a game that cannot be dominated by any single individual. Where at least 22 players are involved throughout the entire game and a roster of 53. A game that has a single elimination tournament. On the other hand you have a game that we have seen can be dominated by a single player (Jordan) and can have 7 people pull you through an entire season.

How much of the "parity" in the NFL is explained by single-elimination in the playoffs? You have clearly never thought of that. You want to casually look that the NFL has a hard cap and then jump to the conclusion that "oh well gee wizz it must be the case that a hard cap gives you a great product, just look at them there NFL!!!" Wrong, you simply haven't thought through this long enough to comprehend for one the fundamental differences in the NFL and NBA and two what the consequences of the NBA going to a hard cap would do.

The NBA should definitely be wary of anything that takes away from their player's especially considering the rise of popularity and revenue for European Leagues. One big reason why the NFL has a deal that favors the owners so much (thats what a hard cap does, and it especially favors the big market owners) is that there simply are not any viable alternatives for an NFL player. The only other comparable league is the CFL but the revenue there is dwarfed by the NFL. The NFL is a monopsony, the NBA is losing its monoposony power every year and they would be wise to not take away too much from the players. You put in a hard cap and the earning potential of each NBA player (superstar to 15th man) drops considerably, there are only a few potential scenarios that would have players benefit (players as a whole would never benefit, just a select group in the few scenarios).

So we went back almost three decades to find parity. Back in the day there was some parity, but that was 30 years ago. That was also at a time when their were less teams for a starting caliber player to be on. The euro leagues being a threat is a joke, they could not even afford 10 million a year for Childress and were happy as hell when Phoenix took him off their hands. Europe is suffering far more from this economic down turn than we are. At least we had a high standard of living when it started, most of theirs was in bad shape from day one compared to ours and now its only worse.

Find parity now, I could care less about watching the playoffs from 20 years ago. But they would be more entertaining than the 4 game 1st and 2nd round sweeps we see now. You come up with conjecture that the owners need to worry about the euro league and find some history of parity in the NBA from the early 90s and act like it is some sort of social cause to worry about owners or players making the most millions.

It is not a cause, it is just a bunch of millionaires playing a game they love to play, and owners paying them what they think they should. A hard cap and franchise tag would still get that done and at the same time it would level out the playing field tremendously, unless of course you can picture the likes of Wade, Bron, Bosh, Garnet, Pierce, Rondo, Allen, Amare, Billups, Melo, Kobe, Gasol, Odom, Duncan, Parker, Gino, Boozer, etc....playing for vet minimums and MLEs. I can't picture that at all to be honest.

Single elimination in the playoffs is a non factor. Green Bay 6th seed against Atlanta 1st seed was about as even a match up as you can get. Drives me nuts when people try and use that lame argument. Played twice this season and spit the 2 games. If we would have played 6 times, it could easily been a 3 to 3 split LMAO.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

I completely agree with Hawksfanatic regarding the NFL vs NBA comparison. The impact superstars have on the NBA is such that you will never have parity. Contrary to popular belief, the most dominant teams over this past decade weren't even over the luxury tax. They just happened to have the best superstar at the time. The 00-02 lakers and the spurs around that time were not over the luxury tax and for the most part were not even among the top 5 payrolls in the sport. They only went over the luxury tax when it came time to resign everyone. Also, as he said, single elimination playoffs make upsets a lot more likely than a best of 7 series.

Finally, people keep pointing to green bay and pittsburgh as examples of "small market" teams. But with regards to the NFL, green bay and pittsburgh are not "small market teams." Because of their history I would bet these two teams are top 3 in the league in number of fans (along with the cowboys). It's like Detroit and Toronto in Hockey being bigger markets than Los Angeles or New York. On top of that, there is the fact that football is simply a lot more popular than basketball. There is 0 parity in college football and college football is still the second most popular sporting event in the nation.

The NFL is not and should never be a model for the NBA.

[Buzzard]

I completely agree with Hawksfanatic regarding the NFL vs NBA comparison. The impact superstars have on the NBA is such that you will never have parity. Contrary to popular belief, the most dominant teams over this past decade weren't even over the luxury tax. They just happened to have the best superstar at the time. The 00-02 lakers and the spurs around that time were not over the luxury tax and for the most part were not even among the top 5 payrolls in the sport. They only went over the luxury tax when it came time to resign everyone. Also, as he said, single elimination playoffs make upsets a lot more likely than a best of 7 series.

Finally, people keep pointing to green bay and pittsburgh as examples of "small market" teams. But with regards to the NFL, green bay and pittsburgh are not "small market teams." Because of their history I would bet these two teams are top 3 in the league in number of fans (along with the cowboys). It's like Detroit and Toronto in Hockey being bigger markets than Los Angeles or New York. On top of that, there is the fact that football is simply a lot more popular than basketball. There is 0 parity in college football and college football is still the second most popular sporting event in the nation.

The NFL is not and should never be a model for the NBA.

That is the whole point. With a hard cap and only "one" franchise tag, teams would be hard pressed to get two superstars like Shaq and Kobe on their team and having three should be all but impossible. That is how the playing field would level out. Under a hard cap Kobe and Gasol would be the Lakers limit, no way could they afford to keep Odom, Artest, and Bynum unless they were willing to take serious pay cuts.

You may not realize this but we ( Falcons) got Turner because the Chargers had to choose to either pay him and release/cut others or let him go. They chose to let him walk and we ended up with a pro bowl running back. That is exactly how a hard cap should work and if structured properly does work. Its not just about current stars it is also about future stars. Chargers had LT at that time and chose to let Turner walk. Lakers would have to make just as tough a choice on Bynums deal as well.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

So we went back almost three decades to find parity. Back in the day there was some parity, but that was 30 years ago. That was also at a time when their were less teams for a starting caliber player to be on. The euro leagues being a threat is a joke, they could not even afford 10 million a year for Childress and were happy as hell when Houston took him off their hands. Europe is suffering far more from this economic down turn than we are. At least we had a high standard of living when it started, most of theirs was in bad shape from day one compared to ours and now its only worse.

Find parity now, I could care less about watching the playoffs from 20 years ago. But they would be more entertaining than the 4 game 1st and 2nd round sweeps we see now. You come up with conjecture that the owners need to worry about the euro league and find some history of parity in the NBA from the early 90s and act like it is some sort of social cause to worry about owners or players making the most millions.

It is not a cause, it is just a bunch of millionaires playing a game they love to play, and owners paying them what they think they should. A hard cap and franchise tag would still get that done and at the same time it would level out the playing field tremendously, unless of course you can picture the likes of Wade, Bron, Bosh, Garnet, Pierce, Rondo, Allen, Amare, Billups, Melo, Kobe, Gasol, Odom, Duncan, Parker, Gino, Boozer, etc....playing for vet minimums and MLEs. I can't picture that at all to be honest.

What do you call parity? Lower seed upsets? Didn't we have a #4 seed in the finals last year? In fact, over the past decade the only time the 2 number 1 seeds met in the finals was in 08. And the only reason the packers were a #6 seed is because of seeding rules, because if they only seeded by record they would be the #4 seed (same record as the eagles but won head to head during season). Just like the #6 Giants had actually the #4 best record. Meanwhile, if the NBA seeded like the NFL, the 07 finals would have been between two #4 seeds. So this whole thing with lower seed winning it all is just false.

As for parity, the Patriots, Steelers and Colts have won the AFC every year since 03.

And that is all while ignoring the fact that single elimination makes upsets more likely.

If the NFL had, say, a 3 game playoffs, the colts, patriots and steelers would likely have won at least 8 of the past 10 titles.

[Guest]

So we went back almost three decades to find parity. Back in the day there was some parity, but that was 30 years ago. That was also at a time when their were less teams for a starting caliber player to be on. The euro leagues being a threat is a joke, they could not even afford 10 million a year for Childress and were happy as hell when Phoenix took him off their hands. Europe is suffering far more from this economic down turn than we are. At least we had a high standard of living when it started, most of theirs was in bad shape from day one compared to ours and now its only worse.

Could not afford Childress? You clearly didn't follow the situation, Josh had an ETO in his contract so he could have stayed there if he chose to. Also, Greece kind of had a big recession at the time. I also did not go back 30 years to try and find parity, you asked when the last time a 6th seed won it all and I told you flat out the answer. Its also not like GB was truly a 6th seed, they had a better record than the Seahawks and Eagles (go check the tiebreaker, GB beats the Eagles) if you didn't have this silly notion of "Division Champs". Again, how much of this NFL "parity" is driven by small sample size? There's a single-elimination tournament along with only 16 games in the regular season. Both of those are a a fifth of the average NBA equivalent.

Single elimination in the playoffs is a non factor. Green Bay 6th seed against Atlanta 1st seed was about as even a match up as you can get. Drives me nuts when people try and use that lame argument. Played twice this season and spit the 2 games. If we would have played 6 times, it could easily been a 3 to 3 split LMAO.

Right there you prove to me you really don't understand the element of small sample size.

I completely agree with Hawksfanatic regarding the NFL vs NBA comparison. The impact superstars have on the NBA is such that you will never have parity. Contrary to popular belief, the most dominant teams over this past decade weren't even over the luxury tax. They just happened to have the best superstar at the time. The 00-02 lakers and the spurs around that time were not over the luxury tax and for the most part were not even among the top 5 payrolls in the sport. They only went over the luxury tax when it came time to resign everyone. Also, as he said, single elimination playoffs make upsets a lot more likely than a best of 7 series.

Finally, people keep pointing to green bay and pittsburgh as examples of "small market" teams. But with regards to the NFL, green bay and pittsburgh are not "small market teams." Because of their history I would bet these two teams are top 3 in the league in number of fans (along with the cowboys). It's like Detroit and Toronto in Hockey being bigger markets than Los Angeles or New York. On top of that, there is the fact that football is simply a lot more popular than basketball. There is 0 parity in college football and college football is still the second most popular sporting event in the nation.

The NFL is not and should never be a model for the NBA.

You're right, they are just two different beasts.

[sturt]

Philosophically, I just don't think it's ethical to limit anyone's income. A person must be worth what the market says they are worth. To do otherwise sabotages the market, and you end up as fanatic suggests... the NFL would not be viable if it there were international competition for its players... the NBA, on the other hand, will increasingly have to defend its turf over the coming decade or two.

What is legitimate, on the other hand, is to place disadvantages on the competitiveness of a team's roster as they edge out beyond a standard deviation (or two?) beyond their peers... because naturally people lose interest if you end up with the equivalent of Globetrotters/Washington Generals games.

Parity? It's less that there is a necessity for every game being decided by less than 10 points, and more so a necessity that 90% of the teams legitimately compete for a championship for a few years every decade or so... a kind of rotational parity.

So all of that contributes to the premise that you really have to manage both ends of the Bell curve with the CBA--provide mainly financial dis-incentives to ownerships who might tend to sit back and rake-in the money, competitiveness-be-damned... and provide mainly competitive dis-incentives to ownerships who might become so engrossed in the pursuit of a championship that they effectively price-out the competition.

Edited March 7, 2011 by sturt

[dlpin]

That is the whole point. With a hard cap and only "one" franchise tag, teams would be hard pressed to get two superstars like Shaq and Kobe on their team and having three should be all but impossible. That is how the playing field would level out. Under a hard cap Kobe and Gasol would be the Lakers limit, no way could they afford to keep Odom, Artest, and Bynum unless they were willing to take serious pay cuts.

You may not realize this but we ( Falcons) got Turner because that Chargers had to choose to either pay him and release/cut others or let him go. They chose to let him walk and we ended up with a pro bowl running back. That is exactly how a hard cap should work and if structured properly does work.

How would having a franchise tag prevent teams from having multiple superstars? Would a franchise tag have prevented the celtics from getting Allen and KG (KG had 2 years left in his deal when he was traded)? Would a franchise tag have prevented Kobe and Pau Gasol from teaming up?

The franchise tag would do nothing in the NBA. Lebron had to stay in cleveland 7 years before he could become a free agent. Do you think forcing him to stay there an 8th year would have changed anything? Williams had another year at least with the Jazz. Do you think forcing him to stay there another year would do anything? Teams would still be willing to deal superstars early instead of losing them for nothing after the franchise tag.

And the hard cap, while not a terrible idea (it is better than a soft cap), would not have prevented the spurs and lakers from dominating the decade. You know what team right now would benefit the most from a hard cap? The heat. The Miami Heat are 20th in salary and would easily fit under a hard salary cap, while the magic, celtics, hawks and bucks would all have to cut role players to fit the system. The hard cap would make role players less valuable because the NBA is ruled by superstars.

People are completely overreacting to the heat decision while ignoring that their proposals would do nothing to actually prevent situations like that and only benefit the heat itself.

The real problem with the NBA isn't superstars moving around too much (Lebron and Melo stayed longer with the teams that drafted them than most nfl stars do). The problem with the NBA is owners who are only interested in making money off of luxury tax payouts and extorting cities for concessions. Owners that keep extorting small markets for facilities and money and then leaving.

Edited March 7, 2011 by dlpin

[dlpin]

Philosophically, I just don't think it's ethical to limit anyone's income. A person must be worth what the market says they are worth. To do otherwise sabotages the market, and you end up as fanatic suggests... the NFL would not be viable if it there were international competition for its players... the NBA, on the other hand, will increasingly have to defend its turf over the coming decade or two.

What is legitimate, on the other hand, is to place disadvantages on the competitiveness of a team's roster as they edge out beyond a standard deviation (or two?) beyond their peers... because naturally people lose interest if you end up with the equivalent of Globetrotters/Washington Generals games.

Parity? It's less that there is a necessity for every game being decided by less than 10 points, and more so a necessity that 90% of the teams legitimately compete for a championship for a few years every decade or so... a kind of rotational parity.

So all of that contributes to the premise that you really have to manage both ends of the Bell curve with the CBA--provide mainly financial dis-incentives to ownerships who might tend to sit back and rake-in the money, competitiveness-be-damned... and provide mainly competitive dis-incentives to ownerships who might become so engrossed in the pursuit of a championship that they effectively price-out the competition.

Let me disagree with 2 points here and agree with 1.

First, while philosophically and ethically it is good to have a level playing field, the fact is that it does not translate to popularity. The highest rated NBA finals ever are the ones with Michael Jordan in them. The NBA was at its absolute most popular when the Bulls were winning 6 out of 8 (and would have won 8 out of 8 if Jordan didn't retire for a bit). Likewise, what finals do you think would have a higher ratings this year, Lakers vs Celtics for the 3rd time in 4 years, or Hawks versus OKC?

Second, there isn't a single league world wide where 90% of the teams compete for a championship every decade or so. In that regard, the NBA is actually doing quite well. 17 franchises have won the NBA finals. Meanwhile, the NFL, which has been played professionally for much longer than the NBA has been around, has had 27 different champions. If you only count currently existing franchises, the NBA has 14 franchises who have won it all and the NFL (again, counting the pre super bowl days) 22.So even though the NFL has been around for 3 decades more, and had more teams early than the NBA (by the mid 70s the nfl had 28 teams and the nba 18), the difference is 8.

But I do agree that a significant problem of the league is owners who don't do anything.

Edited March 7, 2011 by dlpin

[Buzzard]

What do you call parity? Lower seed upsets? Didn't we have a #4 seed in the finals last year? In fact, over the past decade the only time the 2 number 1 seeds met in the finals was in 08. And the only reason the packers were a #6 seed is because of seeding rules, because if they only seeded by record they would be the #4 seed (same record as the eagles but won head to head during season). Just like the #6 Giants had actually the #4 best record. Meanwhile, if the NBA seeded like the NFL, the 07 finals would have been between two #4 seeds. So this whole thing with lower seed winning it all is just false.

As for parity, the Patriots, Steelers and Colts have won the AFC every year since 03.

And that is all while ignoring the fact that single elimination makes upsets more likely.

If the NFL had, say, a 3 game playoffs, the colts, patriots and steelers would likely have won at least 8 of the past 10 titles.

Noticed you stayed away fron the NFC when citing a disparity. Since 1994 when the NFL put the hard cap in place, there have been 5 wild card super bowl champions. Up until that time there had only been one and that was the 1980 Raiders. The number of wildcard teams went from one to two per conference in 1978. Yet from 1978 until 1994 you still only have one wild card champion. Over a same amount of years from 1994 until 2010 you have 5. I do not see how anyone can be blind to the fact that the NFL has a lot more parity now than they did before.

Everyone of those wild card champions finished 2nd in their division. Here is the question of the day, Since 1994 how many 2nd place division teams have one a NBA championship? 5 for the NFL vs how many for the NBA?

Edited March 7, 2011 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

Noticed you stayed away fron the NFC when citing a disparity. Since 1994 when the NFL put the hard cap in place, there have been 5 wild card super bowl champions. Up until that time there had only been one and that was the 1980 Raiders. The number of wildcard teams went from one to two per conference in 1978. Yet from 1978 until 1994 you still only have one wild card champion. Over a same amount of years frpm 1994 until 2010 you have 5. I do not see how anyone can be blind to the fact that the NFL has a lot more parity now than they did before.

Everyone of those wild card champions finished 2nd in their division. Here is the question of the day, Since 1994 how many 2nd place division teams have one a NBA championship since 1994? 5 for the NFL vs how many for the NBA?

Again with the misleading "wildcard" designation. The Broncos were a wildcard in 1997, but had the 2nd best record in the conference and 4th best record in the league. The 2000 Baltimore Ravens also had the 2nd best record in the conference and in fact the 2nd best record in the league. The 2005 Steelers were the #5 seed and would have been the #2 seed in the NFC. The 2007 Giants and 2010 Packers actually had the 4th best record in their conferences

So it is absolutely misleading to use that as an example of parity. It is the same as me saying that the NBA has more parity because a #8 seed went to the NBA finals but a #8 seed never made the superbowl. That is all a matter of rules, of course.

As for how many 2nd place division teams have won the NBA since 1994: 95 rockets, 02 lakers, 04 pistons, 07 spurs.

How many 2nd place (and lower) in the division teams have made it to the superbowl at all? 6 since 94. In the NBA, its also 6.

All this while once again ignoring the fact that one is single elimination and the other is a best of 7. So if anything, by your rationale the NBA has better parity.

Edited March 7, 2011 by dlpin

[Buzzard]

How would having a franchise tag prevent teams from having multiple superstars? Would a franchise tag have prevented the celtics from getting Allen and KG (KG had 2 years left in his deal when he was traded)? Would a franchise tag have prevented Kobe and Pau Gasol from teaming up?

The franchise tag would do nothing in the NBA. Lebron had to stay in cleveland 7 years before he could become a free agent. Do you think forcing him to stay there an 8th year would have changed anything? Williams had another year at least with the Jazz. Do you think forcing him to stay there another year would do anything? Teams would still be willing to deal superstars early instead of losing them for nothing after the franchise tag.

And the hard cap, while not a terrible idea (it is better than a soft cap), would not have prevented the spurs and lakers from dominating the decade. You know what team right now would benefit the most from a hard cap? The heat. The Miami Heat are 20th in salary and would easily fit under a hard salary cap, while the magic, celtics, hawks and bucks would all have to cut role players to fit the system. The hard cap would make role players less valuable because the NBA is ruled by superstars.

People are completely overreacting to the heat decision while ignoring that their proposals would do nothing to actually prevent situations like that and only benefit the heat itself.

The real problem with the NBA isn't superstars moving around too much (Lebron and Melo stayed longer with the teams that drafted them than most nfl stars do). The problem with the NBA is owners who are only interested in making money off of luxury tax payouts and extorting cities for concessions. Owners that keep extorting small markets for facilities and money and then leaving.

The franchise tag is not a one time offering per player, just only once allowed per season. It can be renewed every season on the same player if a deal cannot be worked out. That is what makes it such a powerful tool when dealing with your most expensive assets like quarterbacks. Teams hardly ever have to use it now, but the threat is there if it is needed. Bron nor Melo absolutely could not have gone anywhere if the NBA had a franchise tag been placed on them. Except maybe Europe lol.

NBA superstars are the equivalent to NFL quarterbacks. No team or fan base needs to be put through the BS that Bron, Bosh, and Melo have stirred up. f*** the players, lets get some stability and excitement back into a very ho hum game.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzzard

[sturt]

Let me disagree with 2 points here and agree with 1.

First, while philosophically and ethically it is good to have a level playing field, the fact is that it does not translate to popularity. The highest rated NBA finals ever are the ones with Michael Jordan in them. The NBA was at its absolute most popular when the Bulls were winning 6 out of 8 (and would have won 8 out of 8 if Jordan didn't retire for a bit). Likewise, what finals do you think would have a higher ratings this year, Lakers vs Celtics for the 3rd time in 4 years, or Hawks versus OKC?

Not sure what this is in reference to... maybe Buzz or someone else, but I said nothing about it being ethically good to have a level playing field, nor anything about popularity of the NBA.

But for what it's worth, I think one has to agree that the popularity of the game, if it's to be measured by NBA Finals TV ratings, is simply a matter of the degree to which the common people are familiar with the best players... which, yes, is related to the player's achievements, but not exclusively so. People don't care as much about a finals today that feature [Kobe or other regular NBA MVP candidate] because that player isn't the marketable commodity that MJ or Bird or Magic was. Those guys were popular even beyond the game itself.

Second, there isn't a single league world wide where 90% of the teams compete for a championship every decade or so. In that regard, the NBA is actually doing quite well. 17 franchises have won the NBA finals. Meanwhile, the NFL, which has been played professionally for much longer than the NBA has been around, has had 27 different champions. If you only count currently existing franchises, the NBA has 14 franchises who have won it all and the NFL (again, counting the pre super bowl days) 22.So even though the NFL has been around for 3 decades more, and had more teams early than the NBA (by the mid 70s the nfl had 28 teams and the nba 18), the difference is 8.

You're obviously using a more narrow definition of what I intend by "legitimately compete for a championship." I certainly agree that your definition is more than plausible. But when I wrote those words, what I was thinking by "legitimately compete" was that fans legitimately go into multiple seasons with an expectation that their team will make the playoffs. Just depends on how high a threshold one wants to assign to the term "parity," of course.

But I do agree that a significant problem of the league is owners who don't do anything.

Yes, I get that by now. And what I'm trying to get you to acknowledge, but seemingly cannot, is that the CBA should address both that problem and the problem at the other polarity. Why it's the case that I cannot remains unclear.